Strict Proof Not Needed For Married Woman To Claim Gold Entrusted To In-Laws: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that courts can't demand strict proof from a woman claiming gold ornaments entrusted to her in-laws at the time of marriage.

The Division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed,

“In most Indian households, the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her in-laws occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewelry to husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment.”

The observation was made while partly allowing a matrimonial appeal preferred by the in-laws against a Family Court order directing them to return the original petitioner's gold jewellery.

As per facts, Petitioner's husband passed away soon after marriage whereafter, she was allegedly pressured to leave by her in-laws. The petitioner claimed that her gold ornaments were taken by the in-laws under the guise of safekeeping and not returned despite demands.

The High Court relied on a series of bills and photographs produced by the petitioner to decide on the matter. It took judicial notice of the practical difficulties women face in proving entrustment of gold in a domestic setting.

It observed that the strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law would lead to injustice, and a pragmatic approach must be adopted to decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of probabilities.

"The woman being a family member, cannot be expected to anticipate a future legal dispute and create documentary evidence in a household where she is expected to conform, trust and remain silent, especially in the early stage of her marriage," the High Court observed.

It however partly allowed the appeal on noting that the brother-in-law was residing outside and hence was unlikely to have custody of the gold. It directed the mother-in-law to return the gold to the petitioner.

Case Title: X & Anr v Y

Case No: Mat. A 773/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 407

Counsel for Appellants - P Venugopal, T J Maria Goretti, Ferha Azeez

Counsel for Respondents - T Krishnanunni (Sr), Meena A, Vinod Ravindranath, M R Mini, Ashwin Sathyanath, K C Kiran, M Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver

Click Here To Read/Download Order